DCT
8:23-cv-00731
UMBRA LLC v. Grand Fusion Housewares LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Umbra LLC (New York)
- Defendant: Grand Fusion Housewares, LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
- Case Identification: 8:23-cv-00731, C.D. Cal., 04/27/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant is a California limited liability company with its principal office address in Irvine, California, and maintains a regular and established place of business in Chino, California, both of which are within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s combination dish drying mat and rack products infringe a patent related to a foldable, multi-part dish drying apparatus with specific features for holding dishes and utensils.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the consumer housewares market, specifically concerning products designed for the manual, air-drying of kitchenware.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit via a cease and desist letter in April 2022. Following communications, which included Plaintiff providing a detailed infringement claim chart, Defendant allegedly represented in June 2022 that it would release a modified, non-infringing product design, but has failed to do so and continued selling the accused products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-12-22 | '453 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-03-06 | '453 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-04-27 | Plaintiff sent cease and desist letter to Defendant |
| 2022-05-24 | Defendant responded to Plaintiff's letter |
| 2022-06-07 | Plaintiff provided Defendant with a detailed claim chart |
| 2022-06-30 | Defendant represented it would release a modified product design |
| 2023-04-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,907,453 - Combination Dish Drying Mat and Rack
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,907,453, “Combination Dish Drying Mat and Rack,” issued March 6, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes issues with prior art dish drying solutions, noting that conventional racks often require a separate towel to catch water runoff and may lack dedicated utensil holders, while conventional drying mats lack structures to hold plates vertically, leading to inefficient drying and use of space (’453 Patent, col. 1:32-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-part system comprising a foldable, absorbent mat and a separate, rigid rack that rests on the mat. The rack is structured with upward-extending ribs to form channels for holding plates upright, as well as distinct protrusions and slots for utensils. The entire assembly is designed to be disassembled and folded into a compact form for storage (’453 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:55-60). The specification describes how the mat can be folded around the rack into a "closed position" for storage (’453 Patent, col. 6:15-28).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide a single, integrated product that solved the water containment, dish orientation, utensil storage, and compactibility problems associated with earlier drying racks and mats (’453 Patent, col. 1:49-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’453 Patent, col. 7:1-20; Compl. ¶37).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- A mat with multiple segments and at least two folds, which is foldable into a "closed position."
- A rack with a base that rests on the mat.
- The rack has a plurality of ribs forming channels to hold kitchenware upright.
- The rack is arranged to be "disposed within" a portion of the mat when folded.
- The rack also has a plurality of upward-extending protrusions "arranged in pairs" opposite one another, and a plurality of "co-planar and parallel" slots recessed in the base.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and discovery may identify additional asserted claims (Compl. ¶35).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Grand Fusion Compact Collapsible Dish Drying Rack and Ultra Absorbent Microfiber Mat" (Compl. ¶36).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused instrumentality is a two-piece product consisting of a gray microfiber mat and a plastic rack designed to sit on the mat (Compl. ¶38, p. 10). The mat is described as being foldable, and the rack features upright ribs to create channels for dishes and other kitchenware (Compl. ¶38, p. 12). The complaint includes a marketing image from the Defendant's website showing the product holding plates, bowls, and utensils in an organized fashion (Compl. ¶38, p. 13). The complaint alleges the product is sold through numerous major retailers, including Amazon, Target, and Walmart (Compl. ¶43). An annotated photograph in the complaint shows the accused mat's top and bottom surfaces, its segments, and its folds (Compl. ¶38, p. 10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'453 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mat having a top surface, bottom surface, a plurality of sides, a plurality of segments and at least two folds... and the mat is operatively arranged to be foldable about the folds into a closed position | The accused product includes a microfiber mat alleged to have a top surface, bottom surface, multiple segments, and at least two folds, allowing it to be folded. | ¶38, p. 10 | col. 6:4-10 |
| a rack having a base, wherein the base of the rack rests upon at least a portion of the top surface of the mat in an open position | The accused product has a plastic rack with a base that rests on the top surface of the microfiber mat. | ¶38, p. 12 | col. 3:28-32 |
| the rack having a plurality of ribs extending upwardly from the base and a plurality of channels... operatively arranged to hold kitchenware in a substantially upright position | The accused rack has upwardly extending ribs that form channels, which are shown holding dishes and bowls upright. A photograph with annotations identifies these ribs and channels (Compl. ¶38, p. 12). | ¶38, pp. 12-13 | col. 4:51-64 |
| the rack is arranged to be disposed within at least a portion of the mat when the mat is folded into a closed position | The complaint provides a photograph showing the accused rack being enclosed as the mat is folded around it (Compl. ¶38, p. 11). | ¶38, p. 11 | col. 6:15-28 |
| the rack further comprising a plurality of protrusions extending upwardly from the base and a plurality of slots recessed within the base | The accused rack is alleged to have upward protrusions and recessed slots, as identified in an annotated photograph (Compl. ¶38, p. 14). | ¶38, p. 14 | col. 5:26-30 |
| wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged in pairs and each protrusion of each pair is disposed opposite one another laterally across the base of the rack | The complaint alleges the protrusions are arranged in opposing pairs across the base of the rack. | ¶38, pp. 14-15 | col. 5:35-39 |
| and the plurality of slots are co-planar and parallel to one another | The complaint alleges the slots between the protrusions are co-planar and parallel. | ¶38, pp. 14-15 | col. 5:39-42 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The claim requires the rack to be "disposed within at least a portion of the mat when the mat is folded into a closed position." A dispute may arise over the definition of "closed position" and the degree to which the rack must be "disposed within" the mat to meet this limitation.
- Technical Questions: Infringement of the final limitation will depend on the precise geometry of the accused rack. The court may need to determine if the accused product’s nubs are "arranged in pairs" as claimed and whether the spaces between them qualify as "slots recessed within the base" that are "co-planar and parallel."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "closed position"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for the limitation requiring the rack to be "disposed within" the mat when folded. The viability of the infringement allegation for this element depends on whether the accused product's folded state for storage qualifies as the claimed "closed position."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims and specification repeatedly use the phrase "operatively arranged to be foldable about the folds into a closed position" without imposing further structural constraints, which could support an interpretation covering any configuration folded for storage (’453 Patent, col. 6:22-23; col. 7:4-5).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 11 and the corresponding description detail a specific embodiment where the mat is tri-folded around the rack and secured with a strap (’453 Patent, Fig. 11; col. 6:15-28). A party could argue that "closed position" should be limited to this more specific, secured arrangement.
The Term: "protrusions... arranged in pairs"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific structure of the utensil-holding area of the rack. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will turn on whether the accused rack's features map onto this specific geometric arrangement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the arrangement as "complementary pairs, where each protrusion of each pair is disposed opposite one another laterally across base 24" (’453 Patent, col. 5:35-39), which might be argued to cover any generally opposing nubs.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict a very regular, symmetrical, and mirrored arrangement of protrusions (e.g., 22a and 23a in Fig. 5). An argument could be made that the term requires this level of precise, mirrored pairing, and any deviation in the accused product (e.g., offset or non-identical nubs) would fall outside the claim scope.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendant's "marketing and packaging materials instruct and encourage the use of the infringing Accused Products" by end-users (Compl. ¶¶ 40-41). A marketing image from Defendant's website is provided as an example (Compl. p. 16). The complaint also alleges inducement of distributors to sell the products (Compl. ¶42).
Willful Infringement
The willfulness allegation is based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the ’453 Patent since at least April 27, 2022, the date of Plaintiff's cease and desist letter (Compl. ¶45). The complaint further alleges that Defendant's continued sales after receiving notice and after representing it would release a non-infringing design render its infringement willful (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 49).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction: whether the term "closed position" is interpreted broadly to mean any folded-for-storage state, or narrowly construed to require the specific tri-fold, strap-secured embodiment shown in the patent's figures. The outcome will directly impact whether the accused product meets the limitation of the rack being "disposed within" the folded mat.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused rack's utensil-holding area, with its series of nubs and spaces, possess the specific geometry of "protrusions arranged in pairs" and "co-planar and parallel" slots as required by Claim 1? This is likely to be a fact-intensive dispute driven by expert analysis of the physical product.
- The case presents a significant question regarding willfulness: given the detailed pre-suit history alleged in the complaint—including a cease-and-desist letter, a claim chart, and an unfulfilled promise to redesign the product—the court will have to determine if Defendant's continued sales constitute the kind of egregious conduct that warrants a finding of willfulness and potential enhanced damages.